# Manish Gautam v. Smt. Shikha Gautam

- **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 957
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-03-30
- **Bench:** Pramod Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manish-gautam-v-smt-shikha-gautam-43710
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

4 All. Manish Gautam Vs Smt. Shikha Gautam

957

(b) Lack of availability of land for public utility purposes and

(c) Insufficient number of chak margs and chak nalis.

8. We find that the material on the basis of which the State proceeded to exercise its powers
under section 4A was clearly germane to the exercise of power and clearly evidences the element of
public interest having been borne in mind. The reasons assigned for invocation of the said
provision cannot be said to be irrelevant or arbitrary. The factors taken into consideration while
invoking the said provision were clearly in accord with the underlying legislative policy and
objects of the 1953 Act. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the aforesaid reasons did constitute
"special circumstances" which justified the invocation of the 8 provisions of Section 4 A and
recommencement of consolidation operations.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the present petition which shall consequently
stand dismissed.
----------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.03.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Second Appeal No.- 908 Of 2014

Manish Gautam ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Shikha Gautam ...Respondent

Counsel for Appellant:
Vinod Kumar Agrawal, Anshul Kumar Singhal

Counsel for Respondent:
Diwakar Tiwari

Proceedings

The matter was heard upon the parties' counsel submissions, and the record was perused. It was noted that
sufficient materials were available to decide the matter at the appellate stage without further evidence. The
original matrimonial suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the petitionerappellant. Both the trial and first appellate courts dismissed the petition based on findings that the appellant
failed to prove cruelty and desertion by the respondent. This second appeal was filed challenging the
concurrent findings of the lower courts.

Procedure
958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Original Suit No. 214/2008 was filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce on grounds
of cruelty and desertion.
Respondent-wife filed a written statement admitting marriage but alleging mental and physical cruelty by the
appellant-husband and his family.
Trial court framed issues, recorded evidence, and dismissed the suit citing lack of proof of desertion and the
pendency of criminal cases filed by the respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 128/2011 was filed against trial court's order and dismissed by the lower appellate court,
affirming trial court's findings and considering the appellant's previous attempt for restitution of conjugal
rights as mala fide.
Second Appeal No. 908/2014 was filed before this Court, challenging the legal errors and non-consideration of
material facts by the lower courts.
Apex Court judgments and provisions of Indian Evidence Act (Sections 101, 102) were analyzed to determine
burden of proof regarding living together and cruelty allegations.
After evaluation of facts, circumstances, and legal principles, the appeal was allowed, and the marriage was
dissolved.

Penal Sections / Statutory Provisions

Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Divorce on ground of cruelty.
Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Restitution of conjugal rights.
Sections 101 & 102, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Burden of proof rules.

Case Law Cited

V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337 - Mental cruelty defined; conditions for divorce on cruelty.
Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, (2003) 6 SCC 334 - Persistent
accusations and character defamation as mental cruelty.
Satish Sitole v. Ganga, (2008) 7 SCC 734 - Principles for dissolution when marriage has irretrievably
broken down.

Headnotes

The second appeal concerned the dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on
grounds of desertion and mental cruelty. The appellant-husband claimed that the respondent-wife left his
house shortly after marriage and continuously leveled false allegations, including criminal charges, which
caused him and his family undue mental trauma. The lower courts dismissed the petition, erroneously holding
that the appellant failed to prove desertion and cruelty. The High Court held that the burden of proof
regarding living together rested on the respondent-wife under Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence
Act. It further observed that the allegations, wrongful criminal proceedings, and prolonged separation
constituted mental cruelty. Applying legal precedents, the Court concluded that the marriage had irretrievably
broken down and granted divorce, setting aside the lower courts' judgments.

Facts

Parties married on 31.01.2005.
Respondent-wife stayed briefly at appellant's house, left multiple times within weeks.
Alleged mental cruelty and abuse by the respondent-wife; appellant and parents faced criminal cases filed by
her.
Original suit for divorce filed in 2008; prior restitution of conjugal rights suit withdrawn in 2008.
Trial court dismissed the suit citing insufficient proof of desertion and ongoing criminal proceedings.
4 All. Manish Gautam Vs Smt. Shikha Gautam

959
First appellate court dismissed appeal, holding appellant acted mala fide and failed to prove cruelty.
Parties have been living separately since February 2005.

Contentions

Appellant-Husband:

Respondent's wild allegations and criminal prosecutions caused mental cruelty.
Lower courts wrongly shifted burden of proof for living together.
Long-term separation and failed mediation prove irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

Respondent-Wife:

No cruelty committed by her; criminal proceedings initiated on valid grounds.
Willing to live with appellant; appellant deserted her.
Appeal should be dismissed.

Analysis

Desertion: Parties lived separately since February 2005. Evidence shows no reconciliation; appellant did not
expel respondent. Burden of proof for cohabitation was on respondent. Lower courts erred in reversing this
burden.
Mental Cruelty: False criminal allegations, public humiliation, and detention of appellant and family qualify
as mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a).
Legal Burden: Sections 101 and 102 IEA clarify that respondent-wife, asserting cohabitation, failed to
discharge burden of proof.
Judicial Precedent: Supreme Court cases establish that persistent allegations, defamation, and emotional
trauma constitute cruelty sufficient for divorce.
Irretrievable Breakdown: Continuous separation, hostility, and failed mediation indicate no possibility of
harmonious marital life.
Lower Court Error: Both trial and first appellate courts ignored key evidence and misapplied law regarding
burden of proof and mental cruelty, resulting in perverse judgments.
Equity and Justice: Continuing marriage under these circumstances would cause further undue mental
trauma and be unjust.

Conclusion

Considering the long-standing separation, ongoing animosity, mental cruelty suffered by the appellant, and
failed mediation, the Court concluded that the marriage between the parties had irretrievably broken down.
Applying established principles and legal precedents, the appeal was allowed. The judgments of the lower
courts were set aside, and Original Suit No. 214/2008 was decreed, dissolving the marriage. Both parties were
directed to bear their own costs.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. During arguments it is found
that on the basis of available records, matter may be decided at this stage. Therefore it is
accordingly decided.
960 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. Original suit no. 214/2008 (Manish Gautam v. Smt. Shikha Gautam) was filed for the relief
of divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. The plaint case in brief was that after the
marriage of parties on 31.01.2005, opposite party Smt. Shikha came in house of petitioner, but she
was not satisfied with this marriage and her behaviour was bad. She had been abusing and
humiliating the petitioner and his family members. She stayed only for one week and left house of
the petitioner. Then again she visited the house of the petitioner in February, 2005 and left his
house in same month. During this period, she has been misbehaving, threatening and treating the
petitioner and his family members with cruelty. In spite of repeated request of the petitioner, the
opposite party-wife had refused to live with him and even filed criminal case for offences of cruelty
for demand of dowry and unnatural lust against the petitioner for offences punishable u/ss 498A,
323, 504, 506, 377 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act. Due to cruel behaviour and wild allegation of opposite
party-wife, the petitioner had suffered unbearable mental trouble and agony. Because of criminal
case instituted by opposite party-wife, the petitioner and his parents were arrested and detained in
jail. Due to this they were defamed. O.P.-wife left petitioner's house without any sufficient reason.
Therefore, petitioner had filed petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

3. In written-statement filed in trial court, O.P.-Smt. Shikha had admitted her marriage with
petitioner and pleaded that petitioner and his family members had been treating her with physical
and mental cruelty. The petitioner had tortured her by unnatural intercourse, by beating her and by
demanding dowry. The petitioner had evicted her from his house in the year 2008 and had filed suit
for divorce on incorrect facts; therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. After framing issues and accepting evidences of the parties, the Additional Civil Judge
(S.D.) Court No.-2, Mathura had dismissed the divorce petition. The trial court had given finding
that although it is admitted that petitioner and his parents had to be confined in jail due to criminal
case filed by opposite party-wife, but said criminal case has not been decided, therefore it cannot be
accepted that such criminal case was unfounded. The trial court also held that if criminal case of
O.P.-wife will be proved then it will be proof of fact that petitioner had been treating her with
cruelty. Learned Civil Judge has also gave finding that petitioner had failed to prove that his wifeO.P. has deserted her in year 2005. Inter alia, on these main findings, the trial court had dismissed
the original suit.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment of trial court, Civil Appeal no. 128/2011 ( Manish Gautam v.
Smt. Shikha Gautam) was preferred which was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated
26.11.2012 of Additional District Judge, Court No.-11, Mathura. Lower appellate court had held in
this judgment that petitioner-appellant had failed to prove that he had been willing to keep his wife
with him or that respondent-wife had declined to accept him as husband. Lower appellate court had
discussed the institution of earlier another suit which was filed by petitioner in the year 2007 for
restitution of conjugal rights, but was withdrawn on 24.05.2008. The lower appellate court had
treated this act of petitioner-appellant as proof of mala-fide on his part of. In this judgment, lower
appellate court had also considered the pendency of criminal proceedings initiated by respondent
against appellant but had not accepted it as cruelty in spite of the fact that appellant and his parents
4 All. Manish Gautam Vs Smt. Shikha Gautam

961
had been detained in jail in this case. With these findings, first appellate court had confirmed the
finding of trial court and dismissed the first appeal.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment of trial court, as well as of the first appellate court, present
second appeal has been preferred by petitioner of the original case.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant contended that petitioner and his parents were
detained in jail due to criminal case filed against them by respondent-wife. Apart from it she has
been casting wild allegations against petitioner and his family members which amount to cruelty.
He also contended that lower court had wrongly shifted burden of proving the fact that respondent
was not living with petitioner, because negative facts cannot be proved. He contended that it is the
respondent-wife who has been alleging she had been living with petitioner-appellant from year
2005 to 2008. Therefore the burden of proving these facts were on her, and in absence of any such
evidence, the plea of desertion and living separately should have been accepted by lower courts. In
these circumstances judgment of lower courts are erroneous and appeal should be allowed.

8. The arguments of appellant side were refuted by learned counsel for the respondent who
contended that there has been specific finding of fact that no cruelty has been committed by
respondent-wife against the petitioner or his family members. He further contended that criminal
case was lodged on correct facts. In criminal proceedings, the charge has been framed and
proceedings are going on; therefore at this stage it cannot be said that those proceedings were
initiated without any basis. He also contended that respondent-wife is still willing to live with
petitioner and it is the petitioner who has deserted her, therefore appeal should be dismissed.

9. The original petition of divorce was filed on two grounds. The first was desertion and
second was cruelty. So far as the first point of desertion is concerned, it is admitted fact that
petitioner-appellant had filed original suit no. 238/2007 against his wife-respondent u/s 9 of the
Hindu Marriages Act for restitution of conjugal rights. During pendency of said proceedings, he
withdrew this case and in its place instituted another original suit number 214/2008 for divorce
under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. There has been no finding of any of the lower court
that during pendency of original suit no. 238/2007 for restitution of conjugal rights, the parties were
living together. In said suit no. 238/2007, it was pleaded that O.P.-wife is living separately for more
than a year. Thus the subsequent suit no. 214 of 2008 for divorce was filed after about one year of
institution of original suit no. 238/2007.

10. There has been specific pleading and evidence adduced by the petitioner-husband that his
wife-respondent lived together only for about two weeks till February, 2005. There is no evidence
on record that parties had lived together after February, 2005. It was the O.P.-respondent (/wife)
who had pleaded that she had been living together with her husband from the time of marriage till
2008. But there is no evidence or proof of it.

11. Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act provides that whoever desires any Court to give
judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must
962 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
prove that those facts exist and burden of proof lies on him. In this matter, the petitioner-husband
had not asserted any fact of living togetherness. The plea of living together was taken by
respondent-wife, therefore the burden of proof of this fact was on her.

12. Section 102 of Indian Evidence Act provides that the burden of proof lies on the person
who would fail if no evidence is adduced by either side. This particular point and plea of living
together was taken by the respondent-wife therefore in absence of any evidence or proof, her plea
would fail on this point. But these points were not considered by the lower courts. The petitionerappellant was not expected to prove the non-existence of fact relating to living together. It is clear
that lower courts had committed clear illegality when they have given finding to the effect that in
absence of any evidence of living togetherness case of petitioner about desertion would fail. The
averment of respondent regarding living togetherness of parties was not proved. The differences
between the parties from the beginning and their living separately is admitted fact, but there is no
evidence that respondent was expelled from house of appellant or that she is residing separately for
any sufficient reason. This proves the ground of desertion as required u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage
Act.

13. Apart from it, propriety of the things in matrimonial dispute should also be considered. In
present matter, according to the petitioner parties are living separately after February, 2005 and
according to respondent-wife they are living separately since 2008. Thus, admittedly parties are
living separately for many years. Admittedly during this period, respondent had not only levelled
wild allegations of cruelty and immoral sexual activities but also initiated criminal proceedings due
to which petitioner and his parents were detained in jail. Admittedly, said criminal proceedings is
still continuing and being prosecuted by respondent. Mediation proceedings between parties has
also failed. These facts make it explicitly clear that there appears no chance of reconciliation
between the parties who have developed feelings of ill will, hatred, antagonism and animosity; and
the respondent is prosecuting the criminal case for conviction and incarceration of appellant and his
parents.

14. So far as another plea of cruelty in present matter is concerned, it has been not proved till
now that petitioner had treated the respondent-wife with cruelty or had committed unnatural sexual
activities with her as pleaded in written-statement. The burden of proving these facts lies on the
person who has asserted these facts, that is, respondent-wife, but these facts could not be proved till
now. Leveling wild allegation and prosecuting proceedings for conviction of husband as well inlaws for sending them in jail amounts to cruelty.

15. The word ''Cruelty' has not been defined anywhere in the Act. The word appears to have
been used in the Section in context of human behaviour in relation to or in respect of matrimonial
obligations or duties. Cruelty can be termed as behaviour or conduct of one spouse which adversely
affects the other. Thus broadly speaking ''cruelty' as a ground for the purpose of divorce under
Section 13(1)(i-a) can be taken as a behaviour of one spouse towards the other which causes
reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it is not safe to continue the matrimonial
relationship. Cruelty can be physical or mental or even intentional or unintentional. The mental
4 All. Manish Gautam Vs Smt. Shikha Gautam

963
cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is a matter of inference to be drawn from facts
and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish and frustration in one spouse caused by the
conduct of other can be appreciated on the assessment of facts and circumstances in which the two
of them have been living. The inference has to be drawn from overall facts and circumstances
considered cumulatively. The allegation of having unnatural sexual behavior, dowry demand and
physical torture made by the appellant wife against the appellant husband in her written statement,
is nothing but mental cruelty of such a nature that appellant husband cannot be reasonably asked to
live with the wife. The allegation of wild nature, as stated above, constitutes grave assault on the
character, honour and reputation of husband. Such allegations amounts to cruelty entitling the
petitioner to a decree of divorce. It cannot be doubted that the appellant-husband must have
suffered traumatic experience because of the arrest and confinement in prison of his father, mother
and himself. The arrest and imprisonment must have resulted in the loss of reputation and prestige
of the husband and his family in the society. The mental agony of being arrested and imprisonment
in a false case resulting into loss of reputation and prestige in the society would also amount to
cruelty.

16. In V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337 the Apex Court had held:

"Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts
upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to
live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot
reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot
reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not
necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner.
While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the
parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in
case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither
possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to
cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and
circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to
the context in which they were made."

17. In Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, (2003) 6 SCC 334 the
Apex Court had held as under:

"7. The question that requires to be answered first is as to whether the averments,
accusations and character assassination of the wife by the appellant husband in the written
statement constitutes mental cruelty for sustaining the claim for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of
the Act. The position of law in this regard has come to be well settled and declared that levelling
disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and
allegations of extramarital relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status
as well as the health of the wife. Such aspersions of perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed in
the context of an educated Indian wife and judged by Indian conditions and standards would
964 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amount to worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law,
warranting the claim of the wife being allowed. That such allegations made in the written statement
or suggested in the course of examination and by way of cross-examination satisfy the requirement
of law has also come to be firmly laid down by this Court. - - -

8. The allegations made in this case do not appear to have been the result of any sudden
outburst. On the other hand, such injurious reproaches, accusations and taunts as were found to
have been made in this case lend credence to the fact that the husband was persisting in them for
sufficiently a long time humiliating and wounding the feelings of the wife to such an extent as to
make it insufferable for the wife to live in matrimonial home any longer with the husband. - - - -

11. That apart, in our view, even the fact that the application for amendment
seeking for deletion of the accusations made in the written statement was ordered and
amendments carried out subsequently does not absolve the husband in this case, from being
held liable for having treated the wife with cruelty by making earlier such injurious
reproaches and statements, due to their impact when made and continued to remain on
record. - - - - A conscious and deliberate statement levelled with pungency and that too
placed on record, through the written statement, cannot so lightly be ignored or brushed
aside, to be of no consequence merely because it came to be removed from the record only.
The allegations levelled and the incidents enumerated in the case on hand, apart from they
being per se cruel in nature, on their own also constitute an admission of the fact that for
quite some time past the husband had been persistently indulging in them, unrelented and
unmindful of its impact. That the husband in this case has treated the wife with intense
cruelty is a fact, which became a fait accompli the day they were made in the written
statement."

18. Mental cruelty and its effect cannot be stated with arithmetical accuracy. It varies
from individual to individual, from society to society and also depends on the status of the
persons. What would be mental cruelty in the life of two individuals belonging to a
particular strata of the society may not amount to mental cruelty in respect of another
couple belonging to a different stratum of society. The agonised feeling or for that matter a
sense of disappointment can take place by certain acts causing a grievous dent at the
mental level. The inference has to be drawn from the attending circumstances.

19. In present matter living separately of the parties for long time, prosecution and
incarceration in criminal case of appellant, the agony and humiliation suffered, charging
him with wild allegations and others family members and still facing prosecution for
conviction amounts to cruelty to appellant.

20. On the basis of above discussion and considering the facts and circumstances of
this matter, it appears that relationship of parties had been deteriorated to the extent that
there is no possibility of any reconciliation. Their relationship have reached to the point
4 All. Manish Gautam Vs Smt. Shikha Gautam

965
from where there appears no possibility of any harmonious conjugal relations or their being
living together as husband and wife and discharging matrimonial duties.

21. It would mean that apart from other problems that had come in their way, the main
problem is the failure on his part of sexual or matrimonial life. It would be seen that the
appellant had not immediately rushed to sever his marital relations with the respondent. He
had sufficiently waited for long time to see whether there would be any improvement in the
relations with respondent and for the same reason he had filed petition u/s 9 of Hindu
Marriage for restitution of conjugal rights. Having found no hope, he chose to file suit for
divorce. Even the mediation proceedings between the parties have failed. Therefore, it
could safely be concluded that the appellant having tried all means to sustain the marital
relations but having found that it was impossible for the respondent to gain such
relationship, he had chosen to live apart from the respondent by moving petition for
divorce. Therefore, there was sufficient ground for the husband-appellant to get relief of
divorce.

22. In addition to legal errors as discussed above, the two lower courts have not
considered these important material point at the time of deciding the matrimonial disputes,
which is amounts to infirmity and perversity in their judgments. I am convinced that any
further attempt at reconciliation will be futile and it would be in the interest of both the
parties to sever the matrimonial ties since the marriage has broken down irretrievably. In
light guidelines laid down by Apex court in Satish Sitole v. Ganga, (2008) 7 SCC 734 I
am of the view that since the marriage between the parties is dead for all practical purposes
and there is no chance of it being retrieved, the continuance of such marriage would itself
amount to cruelty. This contention of appellant's side is not unacceptable that the
appellant's marriage with the respondent had completely broken down with no hope of
revival and compelling them to live together would be very hard and unjust. Therefore said
impugned judgments being erroneous are liable to be set aside. Considering these facts,
circumstances, the factum of living separately for many years and no possibility of any
reconciliation, harmonious conjugal relations or future congenial conjugal relations, it
appears appropriate that when it has not been possible for the parties to live together and to
discharge their marital obligations towards each other for many years, then their is no
reason to continue their agony. Therefore on the basis of the forgoing discussion, the
decree for dissolution of marriage should be granted on the ground of desertion and mental
cruelty.

23. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgments dated 26.11.2012 and
7.9.2011 of the lower courts are set aside and matrimonial original suit no. 214/2008
(Manish Gautam v. Smt. Shikha Gautam) for the divorce of parties is decreed. The decree
of divorce is granted, and it is directed that the marriage between the parties shall stand
dissolved.

24. In the facts of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
966 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
 DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.04.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE V.K. SHUKLA, J.
THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.

Special Appeal No.- 915 Of 2015

Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Parishad. ...Appellant
Versus
Sakshi Shukla & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Appellant:
Arun Kumar

Counsel for Respondents:
C.S.C., Rashmi Tripathi, Satyendra Chandra Tripathi, Shailendra

Proceedings & Procedure

This Special Appeal was filed by the U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad, challenging the judgment and
order of the learned Single Judge dated 16th February 2015 in Writ Petition No. 9416 of 2015 (Sakshi Shukla
& others vs. State of U.P. & others), under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Single Judge had
directed the appellant to issue a corrigendum to the advertisement dated 12.12.2014, including Nursery
Teacher Training (N.T.T.) as a qualification for Assistant Teacher recruitment for Classes I to V, thereby
allowing the petitioners to apply.
The appeal involves verifying whether the N.T.T. qualification held by petitioners was recognized under the
National Council for Teacher Education (N.C.T.E.) regulations for appointment as teachers in Classes I to V.

Facts

Government Order dated 9.12.2014 notified recruitment of 15,000 Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools
run by U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad.
Advertisements for the posts were issued on 12.12.2014 and 13.12.2014.
Petitioners challenged the advertisement dated 13.12.2014, seeking inclusion of N.T.T. as a required
qualification.
The Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 16.02.2015, following Division Bench judgments in Uma Yadav
vs. State of U.P. (2014) and Harsh Kumar vs. State of U.P. (2014), directing inclusion of N.T.T. as
eligibility.
U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad argued N.T.T. is not recognized by N.C.T.E. for teaching Classes I to V.
N.C.T.E. confirmed N.T.T. course under Regulation 2002 (Appendix 4) is for children aged 4-6 and first two
years of school (age 6-8), not for Classes III to V, and is not recognized under Regulation 2009 (Appendix
I/II).
Petitioners submitted N.T.T. diploma holders were permitted to appear in UPTET, and prior judgments upheld
their eligibility, invoking principle of constructive res-judicata.